Supreme Court case information

Civil Appeal

A The applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal are granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (J v Attorney-General [2023] NZCA 660).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals.
18 April 2024
_______________________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.  The approach of the Court of Appeal to s 85 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was incorrect.  The Family Court, in considering this matter in the context of a review under Part 6 of the Act, is to address J’s condition and status in accordance with our approach to s 85.    

B The further evidence described below at [156] is admitted.  

C The application for recall of this Court’s leave judgment of 18 April 2024 (J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, T v Attorney General [2024] NZSC 34) is allowed only to clarify the matters which are properly before the Court.

D The judgment of this Court of 18 April 2024 (J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, Tv Attorney General [2024] NZSC 34) is reissued accordingly.

E Costs are reserved.                                                                                                                         15 August 2025

Civil Appeal

A The application for leave to appeal by Ms Fleming is granted in part to the extent described below (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
_________________________________________________

A Ms Fleming’s appeal (SC 42/2024) is allowed. 
B The Employment Court declaration as to Ms Fleming’s  employee status is reinstated.
C The question of determination of the quantum of remedies  for Ms Fleming is remitted to the Employment Court.
D Mr Humphreys’ appeal (SC 44/2024) is allowed. 
E The Employment Court declaration as to Mr Humphreys’  employee status is reinstated.
F The first respondent must pay the appellant in SC 44/2024 costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
G Subject to Order F, costs in SC 42/2024 and SC 44/2024 are otherwise reserved. If parties cannot agree on costs, counsel are to file memoranda (maximum of 5 pages) on costs; counsel for Ms Fleming by 5 February 2026 and each of the respondents by 19 February 2026.
9 December 2025

Civil Appeal

A The application for leave to appeal by Ms Fleming is granted in part to the extent described below (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
_______________________________________________________________
A Ms Fleming’s appeal (SC 42/2024) is allowed. 
B The Employment Court declaration as to Ms Fleming’s  employee status is reinstated.
C The question of determination of the quantum of remedies  for Ms Fleming is remitted to the Employment Court.
D Mr Humphreys’ appeal (SC 44/2024) is allowed. 
E The Employment Court declaration as to Mr Humphreys’  employee status is reinstated.
F The first respondent must pay the appellant in SC 44/2024 costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
G Subject to Order F, costs in SC 42/2024 and SC 44/2024 are otherwise reserved. If parties cannot agree on costs, counsel are to file memoranda (maximum of 5 pages) on costs; counsel for Ms Fleming by 5 February 2026 and each of the respondents by 19 February 2026.
9 December 2025

Civil Appeal

A Leave to appeal is granted (Zhou v Lassnig [2024] NZCA 177).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
17 September 2024
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. The orders made by the Court of Appeal as to the resettlement of the Trust stand.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
15 September 2025

Criminal Appeal

A Leave to appeal is granted (Tamihere v R [2024] NZCA 300).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct not to exercise its jurisdiction under s 406(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 to quash Mr Tamihere’s convictions.
20 December 2024
__________________________________________________
A The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C We exercise the Court’s jurisdiction under s 406(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 to quash Mr Tamihere’s convictions. We make an order directing a retrial.
D Order redacting paragraphs [49]–[61], [79]–[120], [147]– [161], [163]–[164] and [167]–[170] from the judgment delivered on 31 March 2026.
E Order prohibiting publication of the unredacted version of the judgment pending final disposition of retrial.     
31 March 2026

Civil Appeal

A Leave to appeal is granted (Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc [2024] NZCA 403).
B The approved question is whether the four Uber drivers are employees in terms of s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
19 December 2024
______________________________________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondents one set of costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
17 November 2025

Criminal Appeal — Application for leave to refer a question of law

A We grant leave to the Solicitor-General to refer the following questions of law (arising from Nikoloff v R [2024] NZCA 318) to this Court under s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011:
Was the defect in the leave given on behalf of the Attorney-General able to be remedied or rectified by the instrument of ratification?
Was the trial at which Mr Nikoloff was convicted a nullity?
B We appoint Mr S J Shamy as counsel to assist the Court on the appeal under s 318(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
27 November 2024
________________________________________________
We answer the questions of law as follows:
(a) Was the defect in the leave given on behalf of the Attorney-General able to be remedied or rectified by the instrument of ratification?
No.
(b) Was the trial at which Mr Nikoloff was convicted a nullity?
Yes.
18 September 2025